- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27760 WP No. 18077 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18077 OF 2024 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: BADRINARAYANA S., S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BABURAYANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. BANK OF BARODA, REGIONAL OFFICE, MANDYA NO.1636, LAKSHMI NILAYA, 100 FEET ROAD, VIDYANAGARA MANDYA-571 401. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER SANATHAN SATHUVA …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. PREETHU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27760 WP No. 18077 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Sri.Hanumanthappa Haravi, counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preethu, counsel for Sri.Vignesh Shetty for respondent appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing of Annexure-F dated 14-06-2024 issued by the Respondent Bank securing of Physical possession of the Secured asset. (ii) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent-Bank not to make any hectic efforts for taking physical possession of the secured asset. (iii) Issue a Writ or order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the above case in the interest of justice. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the first respondent had filed petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in Crl.Misc.No.45/2021 and the Court vide order dated:03.04.2021 had allowed the petition. The order passed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27760 WP No. 18077 of 2024 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be questioned under writ jurisdiction, as there is an alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT. The law is settled by the Apex Court in catena of decisions that demand/ possession notice cannot be questioned by filing a writ petition. Hence, I decline to exercise power under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31